Michael P. Rubin v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 11, 2023
Docket2:22-cv-08016
StatusUnknown

This text of Michael P. Rubin v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America (Michael P. Rubin v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Michael P. Rubin v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, (C.D. Cal. 2023).

Opinion

11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 1100 1111 1122 1133 1144 1155 1166 1177 1188 1199 2200 2211 2222 2233 2244 2255 2266 2277 2288 122892191 PLL SU snotneD 0052 etiuS ,teertS aoreugiF htuoS 106 4075-71009 ainrofilaC ,selegnA soL 0039 326 312 Case 2:22-cv-08016-MCS-RAO Document 18 Filed 01/11/23 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:183 JUDITH SHOPHET SIDKOFF (SBN 267048) judith.sidkoff@dentons.com DENTONS US LLP 601 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500 Los Angeles, CA 90017-5704 Telephone: 213 623 9300 Facsimile: 213 623 9924 Attorneys for Defendants THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, and PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL P. RUBIN, No. 2:22-cv-08016-MCS-RAOx Plaintiff, STIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDER1 v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE DISCOVERY MATTER COMPANY OF AMERICA, a

corporation; PRUCO LIFE Judge: Mark C. Scarsi INSURANCE COMPANY, a Magistrate Judge: Rozella A. Oliver corporation, and DOES 1-50, Date Action Filed: 11/2/2022 Defendant.

1. A. PURPOSES AND LIMITATIONS Discovery in this action is likely to involve production of confidential, proprietary or private information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecuting this litigation may be warranted. Accordingly, the parties hereby stipulate to and petition the Court to enter the following Stipulated Protective Order. The parties acknowledge that this

1 This Stipulated Protective Order is substantially based on the model protective order provided under Magistrate Judge Rozella A. Oliver’s Procedures. 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 1100 1111 1122 1133 1144 1155 1166 1177 1188 1199 2200 2211 2222 2233 2244 2255 2266 2277 2288 - 2 –

122892191 PLL SU snotneD 0052 etiuS ,teertS aoreugiF htuoS 106 4075-71009 ainrofilaC ,selegnA soL 0039 326 312 Case 2:22-cv-08016-MCS-RAO Document 18 Filed 01/11/23 Page 2 of 16 Page ID #:184 Order does not confer blanket protections on all disclosures or responses to discovery and that the protection it affords from public disclosure and use extends only to the limited information or items that are entitled to confidential treatment under the applicable legal principles. B. GOOD CAUSE STATEMENT This action is likely to involve the production of protected health information, private personal information, claims handling procedures, trade secrets, development, commercial, financial, technical and/or proprietary information for which special protection from public disclosure and from use for any purpose other than prosecution of this action is warranted. Such confidential and proprietary materials and information consist of, among other things, confidential medical records, personal financial information, insurer handling of claims at issue in the Action, business or financial information, information regarding confidential business practices, or other confidential research, development, or commercial information (including information implicating privacy rights of third parties), information otherwise generally unavailable to the public, or which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure under state or federal statutes, court rules, case decisions, or common law. Accordingly, to expedite the flow of information, to facilitate the prompt resolution of disputes over confidentiality of discovery materials, to adequately protect information the parties are entitled to keep confidential, to ensure that the parties are permitted reasonable necessary uses of such material in preparation for and in the conduct of trial, to address their handling at the end of the litigation, and serve the ends of justice, a protective order for such information is justified in this matter. It is the intent of the parties that information will not be designated as confidential for tactical reasons and that nothing be so designated without a good faith belief that it has been maintained in a confidential, non-public manner, and there is good cause why it should not be part of the public record of this case. 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 1100 1111 1122 1133 1144 1155 1166 1177 1188 1199 2200 2211 2222 2233 2244 2255 2266 2277 2288 - 3 –

122892191 PLL SU snotneD 0052 etiuS ,teertS aoreugiF htuoS 106 4075-71009 ainrofilaC ,selegnA soL 0039 326 312 Case 2:22-cv-08016-MCS-RAO Document 18 Filed 01/11/23 Page 3 of 16 Page ID #:185 C. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF PROCEDURE FOR FILING UNDER SEAL The parties further acknowledge, as set forth in Section 12.3, below, that this Stipulated Protective Order does not entitle them to file confidential information under seal; Local Civil Rule 79-5 sets forth the procedures that must be followed and the standards that will be applied when a party seeks permission from the court to file material under seal. There is a strong presumption that the public has a right of access to judicial proceedings and records in civil cases. In connection with non-dispositive motions, good cause must be shown to support a filing under seal. See Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2006); Phillips v. Gen. Motors Corp., 307 F.3d 1206, 1210-11 (9th Cir. 2002); Makar-Welbon v. Sony Electrics, Inc., 187 F.R.D. 576, 577 (E.D. Wis. 1999) (even stipulated protective orders require good cause showing), and a specific showing of good cause or compelling reasons with proper evidentiary support and legal justification, must be made with respect to Protected Material that a party seeks to file under seal. The parties’ mere designation of Disclosure or Discovery Material as CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION does not—without the submission of competent evidence by declaration, establishing that the material sought to be filed under seal qualifies as confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable—constitute good cause. Further, if a party requests sealing related to a dispositive motion or trial, then compelling reasons, not only good cause, for the sealing must be shown, and the relief sought shall be narrowly tailored to serve the specific interest to be protected. See Pintos v. Pacific Creditors Ass’n, 605 F.3d 665, 677-79 (9th Cir. 2010). For each item or type of information, document, or thing sought to be filed or introduced under seal in connection with a dispositive motion or trial, the party seeking protection must articulate compelling reasons, supported by specific facts and legal justification, for the requested sealing order. Again, competent evidence 11 22 33 44 55 66 77 88 99 1100 1111 1122 1133 1144 1155 1166 1177 1188 1199 2200 2211 2222 2233 2244 2255 2266 2277 2288 - 4 –

122892191 PLL SU snotneD 0052 etiuS ,teertS aoreugiF htuoS 106 4075-71009 ainrofilaC ,selegnA soL 0039 326 312 Case 2:22-cv-08016-MCS-RAO Document 18 Filed 01/11/23 Page 4 of 16 Page ID #:186 supporting the application to file documents under seal must be provided by declaration. Any document that is not confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable in its entirety will not be filed under seal if the confidential portions can be redacted. If documents can be redacted, then a redacted version for public viewing, omitting only the confidential, privileged, or otherwise protectable portions of the document shall be filed. Any application that seeks to file documents under seal in their entirety should include an explanation of why redaction is not feasible. 2. DEFINITIONS 2.1 Action: Michael P. Rubin v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America et al, Case No. 2:22-cv-08016-MCS-RAOx. 2.2 Challenging Party: a Party or Non-Party that challenges the designation of information or items under this Order.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pintos v. PACIFIC CREDITORS ASS'N
605 F.3d 665 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu
447 F.3d 1172 (Ninth Circuit, 2006)
Makar-Wellbon v. Sony Electronics, Inc.
187 F.R.D. 576 (E.D. Wisconsin, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Michael P. Rubin v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michael-p-rubin-v-the-prudential-insurance-company-of-america-cacd-2023.